In a recent patent infringement case, Amazon.com asked to have the case transferred from the Eastern District to the Western District of Texas. That motion was denied by the Eastern District federal court judge. Amazon appealed to the Federal Circuit (because the case involved patents) effectively asking the Federal Circuit to force the district court judge to vacate the original order and transfer the case. However, the Federal Circuit denied Amazon’s request and upheld the Eastern District court’s refusal to transfer the case (In re Amazon.com., Misc. No. 115, nonprecedential).

 In denying Amazon’s motion to transfer, the Federal Circuit noted that Amazon.com was seeking “an extraordinary remedy, available to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.” In short, the Federal Circuit found neither in this case. Amazon had argued that access to sources of proof favored transferring the case. However, the Federal Circuit found no clear abuse of discretion in the District Court’s finding that the relative ease of access to evidence in the case did not favor transfer. Even though the district court had relied on the fact that some of the defendants’ likely documentary evidence was outside, but closer to, the Eastern District of Texas, the Federal Circuit relied on the fact that no defendant was headquartered in the Western District of Texas, and that “transfer here would not result in trial of the case where the alleged infringing products were developed and where a significant amount of the defendants’ sources of proof are maintained.”

 Amazon also argued in favor of moving the case based on severance and judicial economy but both of these arguments were also unpersuasive. In conclusion, the Federal Circuit stated that Amazon failed to make “a compelling showing that the Western District is a clearly more convenient venue” and therefore the court could not say that “the District Court’s decision amounted to a clear abuse of discretion.”